First of all apologies to Jacon for reproducing part of my PM, but I think that these are points worth sharing.
I agree with Wayward, and I can certainly empathise with Hosman. Age to me 'can be' (but not always) extremely important. I see age as a consequence of the passing of time, and there is nothing more mysterious and fascinating to me than time itself. What gives me an emotional response is when I think about what has occurred in those intervening years; also holding something that is a a physical link to a time, people and possibly even places that are long gone.
Hosman, in my opinion, is not being dismissive of all the other qualities of an item (please correct me if I'm mistaken, Hosman), I am pretty sure that she is able to appreciate the quality and beauty of a piece and really value the craftsmanship that goes into an object, but as AngelaH says, 'If all we cared about was appearance and functionality, we could all get reproductions instead. They look the same, are usually in better shape and normally cost less.' There is more to being passionate about collecting than 'workmanship', 'age', 'price tag', 'rarity' and so on ... it can be a combination of any of these, and it also (IMO) involves an emotional response to an object.
There are people on this forum who get excited about $2 vintage coke bottles, and I am one of them, because there is an emotional reaction. It doesn't need to be 200 years old, or a piece of quality, or worth $15,000 for it to be of real value to someone.
The problem here is that what seems to have become the topic under discussion is the interpretation of 'value', and as we all know value is not the same as the price tag. Value is a very personal and intangible concept, impossible to predict. As Wayward says, Hosman wants an 18th Century mirror and not a 19th century repro. She sees value in the thing being original and of the period. She is in good company, none of us like being hoodwinked. I can buy something knowing it is a repro and live with it quite happily. If I bought the same item believing it to be original and then discover that it is a repro then I might feel very disappointed.
I have no problem with 'facts', I e-mailed an ebayer recently and advised her that her piece could not be Art Deco as it had a label for the Czech Republic, and she thanked me for it and changed the listing. Facts are important, I constantly remind my students that if they don't support their comment then they are only presenting their opinion, and 'they get no points for opinion'. This is where the problem seems to exist, When forum members comment on the value of something, and how certain people are too involved with the 'age' of an object, these are all interesting points, but are only opinion, reflecting their personal beliefs. Even if they were to quote a thousand so-called experts on fine art, it would still be opinion, it could never be a fact. Facts are tangible, indisputable ... even though some people on the forum and in the big wide world may choose to ignore them.... whether something has value over and above its intrinsic value is a very personal thing and can never be defined as a 'fact'..... Do the works of Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin have any value? They have jolly big price tags, but I would rather have a 1950s Coke bottle worth $2, because it excites, within me, an emotional response that a cow in formaldehyde and an unmade bed, or even their price tags, could never come close to reproducing.
We are here to help each other, to pass on our little pearls of wisdom to anyone who wishes to take advantage of them, and even to those who choose to ignore them, I hope we're not here to lecture people on what they should or should not hold dear. As I suggested earlier, it is so easy to belittle other people's knowledge, passions, values and even opinions if they don't measure up to our own. I am often guilty of that, but I am aware of it.
Apologies for going on so much.
